Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 11th, 2021, 07:45 PM #471
nedsurf nedsurf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,115
Images: 3
nedsurf nedsurf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,115
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMangle View Post
That's a special type of racism known as "white paternalism." That is to say that a white person derives power believing that they are protecting minorities, and thus feels morally justified. Being a Northerner living in the Deep South (and loving museums and history), so much of slavery was 'justified' by a similar thought process that blacks needed to be protected by their masters.
...
My wife is a minority, and has experienced discrimination. She figured out very quickly that it is all the more reason to be armed.
I've observed the same two things during my time in the deep south. Also to my surprise the "happy negro" slavery myth persisted as well when visiting some of the historic houses open to the public.
nedsurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2021, 04:31 AM #472
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 3,612
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 3,612
SO now we wait and see what NY State tries to do at all cost in order to keep SCOTUS from hearing the case. One thing they do NOT want is to go before SCOTUS and tell them why they want to infringe upon the little man and in the meantime here in MD,Frosh and company are having kittens while on the phone to the AG of NYS saying NOOOOOOOO do not take one for the team and please please find a way to win because Herr Frosh knows this will also effect Maryland and he can not live with that thought. I do not care if he stands besides the NY AG squats and makes grunting noises
motorcoachdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2021, 11:09 AM #473
JMangle's Avatar
JMangle JMangle is offline
Handsome Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 803
JMangle JMangle is offline
Handsome Engineer
JMangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by nedsurf View Post
I've observed the same two things during my time in the deep south. Also to my surprise the "happy negro" slavery myth persisted as well when visiting some of the historic houses open to the public.
I also thought that was weird. I have noticed a change just in the past few years. I did one tour in 2019 and again in 2021 and that awkward part was thankfully absent.

Young filed for cert, so now we have a possibility of that getting merged with NY. We should have been done with this back at Woolard, but we didn't have SCOTUS. (Speaking of myths, the 'Trump did nothing for guns' myth is slowly dying.)
JMangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2021, 09:08 AM #474
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 671
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 671
Nothing new

Nothing new --- just a look at the Supreme Court’s question in NYSRPA v. Corlett:

“Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

It is unlikely that any combination of 4 Justices would have voted for cert in the face of a 5/4 defeat on the merits. Conversely (given the question) it looks like at least 5, maybe 6 Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito, Thomas, and perhaps Roberts ) reached a negotiated agreement on the question to be presented which resulted in the answer being shaped before cert was granted, i.e: Yes . . . there is a 2A protected right to “bear” (carry) in public “for self-defense.” The state, within the bounds of “text, history, tradition” and “longstanding prohibitions” can regulate “bear” (who, what, when, where and how) but cannot constitutionally completely preclude “carry” simply because it perceives “no proper cause,” or “particular need.” *

Any other answer would undermine the plain text of the 2A and the approaches mandated by Heller/McDonald. Roberts might have influenced how the question was worded and may assign himself to write a 6/3 opinion.

N.Y.’s lawyers probably will be recommending to the politicians that the applications be approved and that a highly regulated form of “concealed-carry, shall-issue,” be enacted . . . changing the game in an attempt to get the court to moot (once again) a N.Y. 2A case. Other states with pending carry litigation are apt to follow the lead of N.Y.’s legislatures.

United the five originalists can completely control the case. There is no guaranteed outcome, but 2A supporters have math and law based reasons for continued optimism. Other cases are in the pipeline . . . time to double down on support of the 2A. For us seniors (maybe all of us) it may be now, or never. **

Regards
Jack

*(54) https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/h...-the-majority/ [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions . . . .”

**Tip of the hat to Trump, the NYRPA & the NRA who made it possible for this case happen!
wjackcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2021, 09:16 AM #475
Allen65 Allen65 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 3,292
Allen65 Allen65 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 3,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
N.Y.’s lawyers probably will be recommending to the politicians that the applications be approved and that a highly regulated form of “concealed-carry, shall-issue,” be enacted . . . changing the game in an attempt to get the court to moot (once again) a N.Y. 2A case. Other states with pending carry litigation are apt to follow the lead of N.Y.’s legislatures.
But in the new case, unlike the previous NSYRPA case, the plaintiffs are asking for redress for prior wrongs, not just injunctive relief going forward. That short-circuits NY's ability to completely moot the case by a law change because even if NY went full constitutional carry, it still wouldn't address damage from the past.
Allen65 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2021, 02:28 PM #476
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 671
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen65 View Post
But in the new case, unlike the previous NSYRPA case, the plaintiffs are asking for redress for prior wrongs, not just injunctive relief going forward. That short-circuits NY's ability to completely moot the case by a law change because even if NY went full constitutional carry, it still wouldn't address damage from the past.
I would appreciate a quote from Clément’s petition and page number re “asking for redress for prior wrongs.”*

At any rate, a party (N.Y.) to a case has no power to moot the case. N.Y. can by going “shall issue” (in the absence of other viable issues, e. g., “redress”) posture this case so the court might choose to moot it rather than making a decision on the merits.

Thanks
Jack

*https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.ne...tion-final.pdf
wjackcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2021, 03:28 PM #477
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 41,674
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 41,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
I would appreciate a quote from Clément’s petition and page number re “asking for redress for prior wrongs.”*

At any rate, a party (N.Y.) to a case has no power to moot the case. N.Y. can by going “shall issue” (in the absence of other viable issues, e. g., “redress”) posture this case so the court might choose to moot it rather than making a decision on the merits.

Thanks
Jack

*https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.ne...tion-final.pdf
There is that.

This is the second case from NY, in as many sessions that has to deal with 2A. The court might stipulate enough is enough, and let their opinion be known.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2021, 10:01 PM #478
Allen65 Allen65 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 3,292
Allen65 Allen65 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 3,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
I would appreciate a quote from Clément’s petition and page number re “asking for redress for prior wrongs.”*

At any rate, a party (N.Y.) to a case has no power to moot the case. N.Y. can by going “shall issue” (in the absence of other viable issues, e. g., “redress”) posture this case so the court might choose to moot it rather than making a decision on the merits.

Thanks
Jack

*https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.ne...tion-final.pdf
Sorry, I was incorrect about that issue being with this case, I confused it with another case.
Allen65 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2021, 06:13 AM #479
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,690
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
I would appreciate a quote from Clément’s petition and page number re “asking for redress for prior wrongs.”*

At any rate, a party (N.Y.) to a case has no power to moot the case. N.Y. can by going “shall issue” (in the absence of other viable issues, e. g., “redress”) posture this case so the court might choose to moot it rather than making a decision on the merits.

Thanks
Jack

*https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.ne...tion-final.pdf
IANAL but I would say that NY can moot the case if it's willing to agree to never enforce the "need" provision (or the state re-writes the law) and an agreement is reached as far as damages go.
Would they do this though? Highly highly unlikely. First off to agree to all of the above would be an absolutely humiliating endeavor. Second, the only reason for them to do so would be because other states put pressure on them to take a dive in order to hold things off maybe in the hope that a justice can be packed or replaced in the meantime. Well, right now you have Young and Russell (NJ) also at SCOTUS. The court can simply allow NY to moot out and then take one of the other cases and then NY's "moot out" scenario is, well, moot.
press1280 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2021, 07:36 AM #480
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 671
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 671
press1280,

Some lawyers will say that a party can “moot” a case, but only a Court can make a binding determination that a petitioner’s claim (i.e., pending litigation) is (1) “resolved” and only then can the claim be said, in a strictly legal sense (2) “therefore moot.”*

As indicated above (post # 474) my guess is N.Y.’s lawyers will recommend that an attempt be made to have the court “moot” the case. Any recommendation will be confidential. N.Y.’s politicians may (or may not) take the advice . . . you have pointed out some of the considerations.

Regards
Jack

*“Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule had changed is therefore moot.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-280_ba7d.pdf page 1

"Because Federal Courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy) legal actions cannot be brought or continued after the matter at issue has been resolved, leaving no live dispute for a court to resolve. In such a case, the matter is said to be "moot". For Supreme Court decisions focusing on mootness, see, e.g., Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) and Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978)."

Last edited by wjackcooper; June 13th, 2021 at 07:47 AM. Reason: quotes " added
wjackcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (3 members and 2 guests)
DanGuy48, press1280, Ssblugsr
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service